Ah I freaking hate the statement of triple crown means less because RBI overvalued. Floating around all over Internet.

It's not like Cabrera played with an All Star roster

Not discounting RBIs (though I am not a huge fan of the stat). My argument is and has been, what if a player hit 50 HRs? Or had a .350 BA? Is his season any less good? No.

The Triple Crown is a nice feat, and hasnt been done in a long while, but thats not to say Cabrera has had the best offensive season since 1967.

Winning the triple crown is the best offensive season u can have

Well thats just not correct.

Take Barry Bonds' record breaking 73 HR season. He didnt win the Triple Crown, does that mean Cabrera's season this year was better?

No.

Yes his all around offensive year was better.

There's no way you actually believe that, right?

Cabrera:
.330/.393/.606
44 HR
139 RBI
66 BB
98 K
622 At bats

Super Bonds:
.328/.515/.863
73 HR's
137 RBI
177 BB
93 K
476 At bats

Only used traditional stats. Just look at that slash line. That's the greatest single season slugging % of all time, and #11 on base % all time. Look at the walks, 3rd most ever. Batting average is near identical, RBI too, despite a difference of ~150 in at bats.

I dont take into consideration anyone who juiced as having a great season sorry. If it ever comes out Miggy did I will be same way.

That is cheating and all those stats do not exist.

I could go off on a tangent on how steroids dont help performance (steroids improve slow twitch muscles, not fast-twitch muscles, which are the ones that control bat speed, yadda yadda) but Im not.

Instead, how about a hypothetical year where a player has a season like 45 HRs, 145 RBIs, .338 AVG, but doesnt win the triple crown. That would still be a better year then Cabrera's.

And u would be full of crap. This is what I study and have degree in. It affects all muscles. Increases bat speed and power.

Tons of scientific studies out there backing this up.

Anyone who believes steroids do not help u at plate with bad speed simply need to do some research_________________

I get supporting your home team guy, but there is no need to degrade and disregard other great performances. Miggy got lucky.

His avg would have won him an AL batting title 3 times in the last 40 years. And the ones he would have won would have been by .002-.004. The average BA that won the batting title in that span is .349.

His HR total would have been the best in only 6 of the last 20 years in the AL.

His RBI total would have won it 8 times in the last 20 years, including the last 5.

Miggy had an amazing year, and the triple crown is a great feat, but he had a lot of luck mixed in for all three totals to be down from the averages the same year._________________

I get supporting your home team guy, but there is no need to degrade and disregard other great performances. Miggy got lucky.

His avg would have won him an AL batting title 3 times in the last 40 years. And the ones he would have won would have been by .002-.004. The average BA that won the batting title in that span is .349.

His HR total would have been the best in only 6 of the last 20 years in the AL.

His RBI total would have won it 8 times in the last 20 years, including the last 5.

Miggy had an amazing year, and the triple crown is a great feat, but he had a lot of luck mixed in for all three totals to be down from the averages the same year.

Only performance I downgraded was Bonds because he cheated to get it_________________

I get supporting your home team guy, but there is no need to degrade and disregard other great performances. Miggy got lucky.

His avg would have won him an AL batting title 3 times in the last 40 years. And the ones he would have won would have been by .002-.004. The average BA that won the batting title in that span is .349.

His HR total would have been the best in only 6 of the last 20 years in the AL.

His RBI total would have won it 8 times in the last 20 years, including the last 5.

Miggy had an amazing year, and the triple crown is a great feat, but he had a lot of luck mixed in for all three totals to be down from the averages the same year.

Only performance I downgraded was Bonds because he cheated to get it

Eh. You claimed that Miggy's all-around year was better. When you looked at his numbers, and saw how wrong you were, you switched to steroids._________________

I get supporting your home team guy, but there is no need to degrade and disregard other great performances. Miggy got lucky.

His avg would have won him an AL batting title 3 times in the last 40 years. And the ones he would have won would have been by .002-.004. The average BA that won the batting title in that span is .349.

His HR total would have been the best in only 6 of the last 20 years in the AL.

His RBI total would have won it 8 times in the last 20 years, including the last 5.

Miggy had an amazing year, and the triple crown is a great feat, but he had a lot of luck mixed in for all three totals to be down from the averages the same year.

Only performance I downgraded was Bonds because he cheated to get it

Eh. You claimed that Miggy's all-around year was better. When you looked at his numbers, and saw how wrong you were, you switched to steroids.

I NEVER count Bonds in any talks. I knew his numbers but they are non existent_________________

So I'm buying a car . . . not sure whether to go with a used one or a new one. I've had the same one for 7 years, and I bought it used for $7,500. I keep looking at newer ones, but I haven't had to make a car payment since I was 18 years old back when my income was 100% disposable. Taking on another monthly payment is not going to be a fun thing, but I'd also rather not get some beater that I'm just going to have to replace in two years anyway.

Anyone have suggestions for fairly cheap new cars? I can't drive a stick and I'd rather get a sedan as opposed to a coupe or hatchback, but I guess if the price is right I can't be that picky._________________

MrDrew wrote:

I may have to find a taxidermist that will make me a koozie out of a squirrel in a kilt now.

So I'm buying a car . . . not sure whether to go with a used one or a new one. I've had the same one for 7 years, and I bought it used for $7,500. I keep looking at newer ones, but I haven't had to make a car payment since I was 18 years old back when my income was 100% disposable. Taking on another monthly payment is not going to be a fun thing, but I'd also rather not get some beater that I'm just going to have to replace in two years anyway.

Anyone have suggestions for fairly cheap new cars? I can't drive a stick and I'd rather get a sedan as opposed to a coupe or hatchback, but I guess if the price is right I can't be that picky.

IMO, the nicest used car you'll be able to find in abundance will be the Ford Fusion. But you'll look like the rest of the lemmings _________________Oh no, we suck again
- Calvin's out